User talk:Markovbaines/response to WithinThisMind
Everyone can easily see your IP address if you are not registered and logged in at this wiki. You should probably log in before you leave a message here. ---- In case there's any doubt about who wrote what, the page history should help. ---- WithinThisMind, I pointed out several of the post numbers. But, if you’d prefer quotes, I can do that too You pointed out post numbers while not accurately addressing what was said. Quotes are much more helpful, and you have my sincere thanks. So let's keep in mind your claim: there were "folks saying that disowning someone for any reason whatsoever is a bad thing." rncbsn, 9: “I chafe at the hypocrisy (declaring disownment “unnatural” in one breath and then disowning the offending daughter in the next)” Does not say that disowning someone for any reason whatsoever is a bad thing. The author might agree that there are circumstances which make disowning the best, while disagreeing that these are such circumstances. The author does not contribute to the thread again. SC, 18: “not particularly impressed that he would so readily and hypocritically disown his daughter” Does not say that disowning someone for any reason whatsoever is a bad thing. This author does contribute to the thread again, and confirms explicitly that there are times and reasons when disowning someone is necessary: SC, 54: "Cutting her off in this way? Not so much. It might be necessary in some cases, and this could be one (though we have no knowledge)" SC, 65: "Again, if you were writing a general manual for grandparents in this situation, I doubt your advice would be to immediately cut off communication with your child (much less to refer to them with slurs). Because you’d recognize that in most cases that wouldn’t be best for anyone. Then you would talk about specific situations in which this is or becomes necessary, as in your case." So we know that SC does believe that there are times and reasons (such as Kiwi Sauce's reasons, explicitly affirmed by SC just in case there was any doubt), in which disowning someone is not a bad thing. Back to your quotes: SC, 31 – “Which, though it might turn out OK, and I hope it does, is not an especially productive or compassionate approach. Just because his daughter is an adult doesn’t mean that he no longer has any responsibility to help her learn and become a better person, and cutting her off entirely blocks off those avenues. I understand the anger behind this sort of extreme response and the desire to support it, but I think in general this isn’t an approach that people should be cheering off the bat. ” Does not say that disowning someone for any reason whatsoever is a bad thing. And we now have established in fact that SC did affirm disownment in some cases. Additionally, we should remember that SC has explicitly not ruled out disownment in this case. It is the exemplary context of this letter, in being passed around by activist organizations, which SC contests. 45 – “Think about if you were writing a manual for grandparents in this situation. Would this be your general advice? I doubt it. In general, it seems callous and unlikely to be productive.” Does not say that disowning someone for any reason whatsoever is a bad thing. And we now have established in fact that SC did affirm disownment in some cases. What this does say is that it's not great as general advice for grandparents in this situation, to be immediately and uncritically endorsed as exemplary. 54 – “But I can’t believe people genuinely think this is the best approach to take if the goal is the best outcome for the people involved rather than the satisfaction of expressing contempt. I definitely think the grandfather is to be admired for taking in his grandson, for supporting him, and for standing up for him with his daughter and telling her how terrible disowning him was. Cutting her off in this way? Not so much.” Does not say that disowning someone for any reason whatsoever is a bad thing. And we now have established in fact that SC did affirm disownment in some cases. In fact, in this quote, you actually did not quote the very next line, where she says "It might be necessary in some cases, and this could be one". That's pretty important, that part you left out. Considering that it makes her meaning much clearer, and in fact directly contradicts your claim. Looks pretty clear, with the grandfather being called out for disowning his daughter for her actions and being called a hypocrite for doing so. What exactly looks pretty clear? Your claim was: there were "folks saying that disowning someone for any reason whatsoever is a bad thing." It is in fact clear that your claim was false. This is the sort of thing why Jadehawk said "this conversation would be so much less inane if people argued what actually was written, not some exaggerated and simplistic version thereof." So don’t try to rewrite history and gaslight me. I read the thread. As you can see above, I can pull direct quotes to support my characterization of what occurr ed. Thanks for the quotes, as it at least allowed a fair examination of your claim. It turns out your claim is demonstrated to be false, and you were the one rewriting history. Unfortunately, these things happen! They happen often even without evil motive. So I won't accuse you of gaslighting, even though you were rewriting history. I won't claim you were trying to make anyone think they were crazy, because there is in fact no evidence of that. Much like my own disputation, your motive seems to be to support your own interpretation of events. That is understandable, everybody does it, and you're not evil for doing it. You're not gaslighting, and of course neither am I. When you realize that my motive is rather different than you're portraying it, I would appreciate an acknowledgement of this fact. To sum up, fuck off. And a retraction of this unwarranted attack, please. -sg, 05:50, October 9, 2013 (UTC)